Tools

Blog Stats

Archive for November, 2016

Two big cities in Orange County switched to district elections this year due to lawsuits filed by Hispanic activists to force the creation of Hispanic-leaning districts. How’d that work out?

In Anaheim, two districts were designated as “Hispanic” districts. Jordan Brandman beat Hispanic activist Jose Moreno in one of them, and Lucille Kring slaughtered leftwing Arturo Ferreras in the other. The upshot – Anaheim will now have seven Caucasians on its council, and no Hispanics.

In Garden Grove, two districts were also designated as “Hispanic”. In one, 23-year old Kim Bernice Nguyen beat Rickk Montoya, who had been the plaintiff in the districting lawsuit. In the other, white neighborhood activist Stephanie Klopfenstein beat LULAC-favorite Demian Garcia-Monroy. Bottom line: Garden Grove goes from a council of three Vietnamese and two Caucasians, to a council of four Caucasians and three Vietnamese, and still, no Hispanics.

In the meantime, in the cities of Westminster and La Habra, which have no district elections, Sergio Contreras and Rose Espinoza were easily reelected.

Just goes to show, if you have good candidates you can win anywhere, while if you have lousy candidates, you can’t force-feed them to the voters anywhere.

By the way, lawsuits to force district elections may soon be a thing of the past. They are all based on the California Voting Rights Act, which virtually demands that cities create districts by race. When new Trump justices join the Supreme Court, the Court could well rule the California Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional as an illegal intrusion of race into the line drawing process. Are you paying attention, Fullerton and Costa Mesa????

Shortly after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, a book by the name of Primary Colors was published. Written anonymously (the author was later revealed as reporter Joe Klein), it was a fictional treatment of the Clintons as Bill ran for president in 1992. The novel showed how the Clintons had descended from idealists active in the 1972 McGovern campaign to the pragmatic, tawdry, couple they came to be. In one revealing paragraph, the author captured the essence of the Clintons: “‘Libby, you said it yourself,’ Susan [the Hillary character] said coolly. ‘We were young. We didn’t know how the world worked. Now we know.'”

That was the image that plagued Hillary throughout the 2016 campaign. Everybody knew that she was so pragmatic that she appeared to have no bedrock principles. So when she announced she was switching from supporting the TPP trade treaty to opposing it, nobody believed her.

They certainly didn’t believe her in the Rust Belt. They were convinced that as soon as she was elected, she’d make some superficial changes and sign the TPP. That’s what cost her Wisconsin-Ohio-Michigan-Pennsylvania, and with them the election. When voters don’t believe what you’re saying about things that affect their livelihood, you get WOMPed.

Don’t be taken in by the fact that Hillary won the popular vote. She won big in states where Donald Trump didn’t campaign. In those states, she was still Secretary Clinton. Where Trump did campaign, she was Corrupt Hillary. If Trump had campaigned, Corrupt Hillary would have gotten far less votes than Secretary Clinton did.

After three failed attempts to pass a school bond in the last 13 years, supporters of a school bond in the Orange Unified School District have taken some rather creative steps to try to pass Measure S, a property tax increase $288,000,000 bond for four schools.

In their campaign to raise property taxes, Yes on S supporters apparently have no problem abusing tax dollars, disregarding private property rights, and disrespecting the First Amendment right to free speech of the opponents.

As Matt Cunningham reported yesterday on OC Daily, the Anaheim Union High School District appears to have used public resources for political activity, namely the campaign of Jose Moreno for Anaheim City Council. The Orange Unified School District has more aggressively used public resources to promote Measure S.

Taxpayer-Funded Measure S Mailer

Spending $22,949.45 of taxpayer money under the guise of an informational flyer, OUSD mailed 77,000 copies of a mailer entitled, “Measure S Would Provide The Funding Needed To Repair & Upgrade Our Classrooms” that featured photos of smiling teenagers. A true informational flyer would simply have been a plain text, black and white sheet of paper, not a colorful mailer reminiscent of campaign mailers. Here is the mailer:

Under the “Important Information About Measure S” heading, OUSD notes that Measure S is a $288,000 bond (rather than the actual amount of $288,000,000). When asked whether this was an attempt to mislead the voters or just incompetence while spending taxpayer dollars, the district went with the latter.

Click here to view the $22,949.45 OUSD purchase order and the invoice from Marketink in Los Angeles County. Ironically, OUSD couldn’t find a printer in Orange County despite the Measure S campaign touting that the funds would remain local. The invoice also shows the district paid 9% sales tax. Had they used an Orange County printer, sales tax would have only been 8%, with 0.5% of the 8% going to Orange County’s Measure M2 transportation projects.

In a further use of public resources, pro-Measure S tables have been erected on school campuses.

The photo at right was taken in the Learning Center at Nohl Canyon Elementary School in Anaheim Hills during the school’s book fair.

A similar table was reportedly at Villa Park High School during Back-to-School Night, where people were jumping around in “Yes on S” T-Shirts and handing out stickers, signs, and other collateral. They were also trying to coerce parents to “sign up” for the “Yes on S” campaign.

Apparently, the Measure S proponents are unfamiliar with the separation of taxpayer resources and political campaigns.

Sign Theft & Banner Destruction

If the use of taxpayer resources was not enough, the Yes on S side is disregarding property rights and actively censoring the No on S side. Apparently, the Yes on S side didn’t pay attention to their American Government classes during the discussion on the First and Fifth Amendments.

Here’s a video of a “No on S” sign being pulled out of a front yard on East Cumberland Road in Orange. The video was taken from the surveillance camera of the homeowner whose sign was taken. The individual taking the sign appears to be a government employee though the video is too far away to determine which jurisdiction the sign-taker works for.

Here are some photos of someone else stealing “No on S” signs from a business in Orange on Chapman Avenue. Click on any of the thumbnails for a larger version of the photo.

The sign thief walks toward a “No on S” sign just outside the view of the camera.

The sign thief can be seen holding the “No on S” sign he grabbed.

Here’s a closer look at the sign thief.

Here’s a photo of a “No on S” banner that got slashed. Apparently, civility is no longer taught in schools. Click on the photo below to see a larger version of it.

Polling Data Used for Bond Measure Placement

The Greater Orange News Service reported that the OUSD Board used polling data to have one bond taxing the whole district for four schools rather than two bonds, each taxing half the district for two schools.

As an aside: the pro-union, often-innuendo-laden Greater Orange News Service is an anonymous blog covering OUSD that was founded by Yorba Academy of the Arts Middle School Teacher Joe Mello (who sits on the board of the Orange Unified Education Association, the OUSD teacher’s union) and Los Alamitos Unified School District Teacher Jim Bearns. Mello and Bearns are pro-bond, but as residents of Long Beach, they won’t have to pay for the property tax increase imposed by Measure S.

Pay to Play In School Bond Measures in the OC

For those of you who missed Craig Alexander’s post on OC Political yesterday, Craig reported about a California Policy Center study that found:

Ever wonder who finances the campaigns to pass school bond measures in Orange County? A study performed by the California Policy Center of five school districts has shown that many of the same attorneys, construction contractors and design firms have contributed to the campaigns to pass these measures. In Construction Firms Fund Orange County School Bond Campaigns CPC reviewed the funders of school districts in Anaheim, Orange, Ocean View, Brea and Fountain Valley school districts. Of course this pay to play campaign contributions is not confined to these five districts. In Capistrano Unified School District’s Measure M (the Billion Dollar Bond Tax), many of the same players have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the yes on M campaign. Who is heading up the Yes campaign? CUSD Trustee Gary Pritchard.

As the report found (partial quote):

“Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rudd & Romo (AALRR) is a law firm with eight offices across California. AALRR has donated $2000 to Anaheim Elementary School District’s bond measure, $12,000 to Orange Unified School District and $1000 to Fountain Valley School District. AALRR claims to represent nearly half the school districts in California and has previously represented both districts.

Bernards Builders Management Services is a general contractor located in San Fernando. Bernards has donated $2000 to Anaheim Elementary’s bond measure and $5000 to Brea-Olinda Unified School District’s measure. Bernards has worked with Brea-Olinda before on the Brea-Olinda High School and Olinda Elementary School. The subcontracted architecture firm for the Brea projects, LPA, has donated $10,000 this election cycle to Orange’s bond measure.”

These attorneys, contractors and others stand to make millions of taxpayer funded bond tax money if these measures pass. The same is true of Proposition 51 – the $9 Billion school facilities bond tax before the voters next week. The report notes:

“The California Building Industry Association has donated over $1,500,000 to Proposition 51, a statewide measure that would allow the state of California to issue $9 million in bonds for the State School Facilities Fund. The builders are the second-largest contributor in support of the proposition.”

There are ten school bond measures on the November 8th ballot in Orange County alone. If only a few pass, these firms stand to make millions on contracts to build these projects. Not a bad return on their campaign contribution investments – at taxpayers’ expense.

He says more customers who found their privacy invaded during his tenure as an executive at RealNetworks also apparently misunderstood him.

And San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan must have misunderstood him when he accused Newman of misappropriating confidential police files and using them in a smear campaign against Jordan.

Is Josh Newman simply misunderstood?

A female San Francisco intimate apparel executive didn’t think so, after Newman openly admitted that he forged Mayor Jordan’s signature on the Mayor’s stationery in order to get a date with her while working for Jordan. An associate of the executive circulated the letter without her approval.

San Francisco Supervisor (and future Senator) Carole Migden didn’t think so, saying “Josh Newman has left a trail of bloodletting. The phones ring off the hook from allegations from him.”

The courts don’t think so. SendMe, Inc. was the defendant in one county-level and six federal lawsuits filed between 2008 and 2014 for so-called “cramming,” a deceptive billing practice of adding charges to customer’s phone bills without their authorization or knowledge. A $63-million settlement resulted. Newman was Senior Vice President of Business Development.

RealNetworks was the subject of 15 county-level and over 55 federal lawsuits over copyright infringement and interference in customer licensing relationships over DVD movies and songs between 1999 and 2005, resulting in a $20-million settlement. Eventually RealNetworks was forced into involuntary bankruptcy proceedings. Newman was Director of Marketing.

Former San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan didn’t think so, accusing Newman of unethical behavior and possible theft after his resignation. Jordan referred the matter to the San Francisco District Attorney for further investigation.

The public record suggests that Newman may not be misunderstood at all. Rather, he may have a self-destructive personality that makes him particularly unsuited to hold public office, especially in the California State Senate.

Recently, during an Orange County Central Committee meeting, the depletion of the Republican brand was emotionally decried by a board member opposing the endorsement of some PYLUSD School Board members.

The School Board challenger candidates, Khan, Yezbak and Kingsbury, are running for the open seats currently held by Padget, Carmona and Downey. They were seeking the endorsement of the OCGOP. At that September meeting of the OCGOP Central Committee, they were accused of supporting a recall effort against either some Yorba Linda City Council candidates or the current water board recall. During the questioning, it was not entirely clear, nor was it established that they undertook some actual support of the recalls, it was simply vociferously and strenuously asserted and accused. These candidates, all of them registered Republicans, have since withdrawn their request to be endorsed by the OCGOP.

The incumbents (Padget, Carmona and Downy) were elected, seated members of the PYLUSD school board when the bond expenditures were approved that funded multiple school improvements as well as the Performing Arts Center at El Dorado High School, and the Shappell Stadium at Yorba Linda High School. At the OCGOP meeting in September, no mention was made of these usurious bonds. None, not once was it raised.

All beautiful and seemingly worthwhile expenditures, new buildings, building improvements and technology, except that they weren’t. The initial cost of these improvements was about $22 million. In their infinite wisdom, these sitting school board members financed the improvements with bonds that had interest rates of about 23%. Once these buildings and the technology upgrades are all paid off, the overall cost to the citizens of Placentia and Yorba Linda will be well over $300 million.

$300 million, for $22 million in improvements. About 40 years to pay it all off. Fiscally responsible?

I wrote about these things in 2015, and apparently none of the GOP in Orange County were paying attention, because they seemed fully and completely unaware of it at their meeting in September.

The Central Committee member who was so offended by these school board challengers seeking an endorsement is also an elected official in Yorba Linda. She railed against these challengers and accused them of damaging the Republican brand. There has been an ugly groundswell in Yorba Linda of using recall efforts to oust unruly politicians, the merit of them certainly debatable, but it was not established nor even asserted that these candidates had anything to do with the recent council or water board recall efforts. It was simply a question, viscerally and emotionally posited, and as such, suggested they had or might have signed the recall petitions. They stated, repeatedly, that they did not recall. It was not an evidentiary hearing, it was an informal question and answer period. It seemed like an inquisition.

Personal vendettas have no place in local elections, and should not be part of the Republican brand. The pontification about branding of the party in that OCGOP meeting, never at any time, mentioned the serious fiscal issues of the PYLUSD board, or any real issues for that matter, only emoting about elections past and perceived alignments within the city.

Noteworthy, was the attendance at that meeting, by Eric Padget, Incumbent PYLUSD board member and registered Republican. His colleagues on the board who are also up for re-election, are not Republicans.
The OCGOP, on that evening, voted NOT to endorse the challengers, Khan, Calderon and Kingsbury. Neither Eric Padgett, nor his non-Republican cohorts, sought the timely endorsement of the OCGOP. It was rumored that Mr. Padgett is not a regular at those Central Committee meetings and was probably there at the behest of the Yorba Linda City Council members who are also members of the Central Committee.

What then, is this “BRAND” that is so worthy of protection? If the Central Committee will sit idly by and do nothing in the face of such obvious and usurious abuse by sitting board members, that in and of itself is an “endorsement”. 40 year financing at 23 %, can not be argued in any context to be fiscally responsible. That is without even getting to the discussion of the abomination that is Common Core, and the federal usurping of our local education system.

Conservatism, used to mean, fiscal responsibility as well as adhering to a concept of local control. No reasonable minds believe that financing technology and building improvements at 23% interest, while the budget and taxpayers are strapped with this debt for the next few generations, is “fiscal responsibility”.

If by protecting the “brand” the committee members meant that they publicizing their ability to exact vengeance upon people who might have disagreed with them in elections past, then, by all means, that “brand” was communicated and is now understood. It is not who we used to be, or historically have bene as Republicans, that is Clinton-cartel style politics.
Let’s hope it does not proliferate in our party and our county.
Here is the story as it was carried by the OC Register when the financial abuse in the PYLUSD was first widely exposed. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bonds-496091-school-bank.html